1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

CERN announces plans for the world's largest particle accelerator to explore antimatter...

By William Gayde · 29 replies
Jan 16, 2019
Post New Reply
  1. CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, has released a proposal to build the biggest and most powerful particle accelerator in the world. The collider they currently have, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), is roughly 16.6 miles around, but their new accelerator will be 100km (62 miles) around.

    This endeavor, known as the Future Circular Collider, will be constructed underground in the area near the current LHC. It will surround Geneva and pass through Switzerland and France giving scientists even more insight into particle physics.

    CERN is famous for producing many ground breaking discoveries in the field of particle physics, most notably the discovery of the Higgs boson. With the LHC, CERN already had the most powerful atom smasher in the world, but science sleeps. The accompanying video includes testimony from many of the scientists working on the project including Nobel Laureate Peter Higgs himself.

    These massive machines work by accelerating particles to nearly the speed of light and them smashing them into one another. By analyzing the collisions and resulting subatomic particles that fly off, scientists can dig deeper into the building blocks of our universe.

    Projects like this take decades to realize, so many of the scientists who will eventually be working on the FCC haven't even been born yet. After the LHC was introduced, it took 10 years to be approved, and another 15 years after that until it was operational. The much larger FCC project is expected to span over 70 years.

    This week's report is the culmination of 5 years worth of work from 1,300 scientists and lays out plans for many future designs. With this new collider, scientists hope to explore antimatter, dark matter, and further explore the Higgs boson. Although the LHC provided many insights, it also created questions that can only be answered with a more powerful collider.

    This project will come in several phases. The first phase will complete by 2040 and will consist of building the $5 billion tunnel and a $4 billion lepton collider. This device would smash electrons and positrons (the antimatter variant of an electron). Around 2050 or 2060, scientists will upgrade it to a $15 billion hadron collider to smash protons. Scientists in China have also released plans for a 100km collider of their own.

    Permalink to story.

     
  2. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 4,596   +3,202

    What's their f. problem? Wasting own resources instead of helping the world's science community, is just another act of political spite.

    They also want their own space station. And there will be day China will want their own planet, and I'd be looking forward to telling them to f. off there, good riddance, you can build another wall on Uranus, for all we care.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019
    trparky likes this.
  3. mbrowne5061

    mbrowne5061 TS Evangelist Posts: 1,255   +699

    Ok.
     
  4. trparky

    trparky TS Evangelist Posts: 585   +499

    Yep.
     
  5. Reachable

    Reachable TS Evangelist Posts: 369   +183

    Shoulda known that forum members here would immediately start bashing the 'commies' in China. Be aware that China beat CERN to the punch by a couple months. China is in a period of flexing its muscles, letting the world know of its science and technology equality with the West. It's just a proposal. But when it comes down to brass tacks there aren't going to be two giant ring colliders built. My guess is that China and Chinese scientists would end up being participants in the CERN collider

    A better use of mental energy here is to ask whether there actually is a need for any such collider. There are issues with it, one being that it may well turn out to be just a non-illuminating intermediate size/energy between LHC and a collider that could actually answer the next level of questions. Those who receive grant money have been known to want to continue to receive it even though they know their efforts would yield nothing useful, and those who occupy prestigious positions have been known to to want to keep their positions even after those positions have turned into sinecures.
     
    JaredTheDragon likes this.
  6. petert

    petert TS Evangelist Posts: 360   +159

    but it is obvious why - and they are not wrong at all tbh
     
  7. petert

    petert TS Evangelist Posts: 360   +159

    Not sure about that - the collider is pretty much a finite resource and will cost a stupid amount just in running costs - the largest contributors (I suspect top dogs from EU) will get the lion share in terms of time and resources there while everybody else will get just enough to publish something. And while that is acceptable for a small country, it is not acceptable for a player like China which can definitely afford bulding one of their own. Let the foreigner bastards show up in China for a go at the supercollider, not the other way around. Not to mention internal prestige but also international: you don't get to be a super power and save money by queueing at some other country doors in order to have a go at the equipment!
     
    Reachable likes this.
  8. Reachable

    Reachable TS Evangelist Posts: 369   +183

    Yeah, that sounds realistic. I got carried away when I saw the African and Asian faces in the publicity photos when LHC first started.
     
  9. ckm88

    ckm88 TS Addict Posts: 187   +135

    Stupid question here: Could this possibly create some sort of black hole?
     
  10. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 4,171   +3,775

    The answer to that is unknown. All black hole science is currently theoretical.
     
    ckm88 likes this.
  11. ckm88

    ckm88 TS Addict Posts: 187   +135

    So are you saying that scientist aren't even sure that when a star collapses, it creates a black hole?
     
  12. JaredTheDragon

    JaredTheDragon TS Guru Posts: 634   +408

    No. Black holes aren't real, and never were. Come on, now, we're all adults here.
     
  13. JaredTheDragon

    JaredTheDragon TS Guru Posts: 634   +408

    The answer there is also no. Nothing new was discovered at the existing LHC, and no useful physics have emerged from it. Just like Lie-GO and BICEP-2 and all these huge, expensive projects, these things are simply money pits. Fake science. The funding for construction is next to nothing compared to how much these people loot from the projects.
     
    mosu likes this.
  14. netman

    netman TS Evangelist Posts: 378   +132

    I guess the next FFCC (Far Future Circular Collider) needs to be stretched the circumference of the planet Earth for the target year of 2100....and yes, it can pass thru China and Russia!
     
    senketsu likes this.
  15. Evernessince

    Evernessince TS Evangelist Posts: 4,171   +3,775

    Correct, it's all theory right now. In order to go from a theory to law, scientists have to be able to demonstrate the theory functions repeatedly and under varying conditions.
     
    ckm88 and wiyosaya like this.
  16. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 4,193   +2,476

    I'd be interested in hearing why you consider such projects fake science.

    The Higgs boson was only theorized to exist. It took the LHC to provide evidence that it actually does exist. This process is, in essence, the definition of science.

    As I see it, these projects help to further understanding. Their end results are building blocks for future science. There may be questions that science ultimately cannot answer, however, I see no harm in trying since in the process, something is almost always learned.
     
    JaredTheDragon likes this.
  17. JaredTheDragon

    JaredTheDragon TS Guru Posts: 634   +408

    Except it doesn't exist the way they sold it. Yes, you can stack spins onto a proton via collisions to increase its radius and get to those energies (radius) that the "Higgs boson" was theorized at, simply because it doubles each time you add a new spin-level. But calling that larger particle "Higgs" is where the theory ends. It's not a discrete particle, it's just a proton with a few more spins - the same way a neutron is just a proton with a reversed last spin, or an electron is just a proton with three fewer stacked spins. They are all just variants of the same particle - the photon itself, which is the fundamental quanta so far.

    This is actually why that "Higgs" particle is so unstable. It's too big to dodge the charge field (photons) and gets knocked back down to a proton rapidly. It's the same reason a neutron doesn't last long outside the nucleus - it gets knocked down into an electron or positron rapidly. That's what "beta decay" is, at the physical foundational level.



    But the Higgs theory says that this larger proton somehow magically gives all other particles their mass, which is absolutely false. All other particles already have mass, including the photon itself. You don't need a larger particle to give smaller particles which already exist with mass, mass, you see. They already have it. So all they did at the LHC was confirm that a proton with two more stacked spins can exist for a moment before being spun back down. That's why we don't see larger particles in the nucleus in nature, as well. The proton's (and neutron's) radius keep them relatively stable in most cases and most collisions with the charge field (photon).

    Hopefully that makes sense, even if you disagree, so you can see why I say the Higgs theory is false.

    If you'd like to see how stacked spins look further, here's a couple WebGL apps we've developed to help visualize it:
    https://www.nevyns-lab.com/science/spin-apps.php
     
  18. JaredTheDragon

    JaredTheDragon TS Guru Posts: 634   +408

    There are no actual "laws" in the Scientific Method. Only theories that are currently unfalsified. A better theory may always come along in the future to explain data and experiment. Postulates aren't laws. The speed of light is not a law nor a constant. Gravity is not a law, it's an acceleration. Sure, in the old literature they are often called "laws", but a great many of those have been falsified as well so it appears nature sticks to its own rules, not the laws of man.
     
  19. JB3543

    JB3543 TS Enthusiast Posts: 35   +39

    I'm wondering if humans are simply too stupid to figure out the universe without resorting to these gigantic machines. I mean, shouldn't a pen, paper, and a calculator suffice? We have, after all, had a long time in which to figure this stuff out...
     
  20. Lew Zealand

    Lew Zealand TS Guru Posts: 834   +730

    What?
    Are you using a computer to post that response or a pen, paper, and a calculator?
    There are quite a few things out there which require more than those simple tools.
     
    JaredTheDragon likes this.
  21. JaredTheDragon

    JaredTheDragon TS Guru Posts: 634   +408

    Actually you are correct, though the work is far, far from over. Only insane hubris would claim to have figured out the entire universe. We've barely even sampled our own neck of the woods, even here on Earth. But the best physicists in the world don't even use computers at all to do their work. Look up Miles Mathis sometime, and his "Greatest Standing Errors in Physics and Mathematics." He's the guy who discovered that the charge field is actually just photons, and his work is all done on paper or in his head. Almost all his papers use only simple algebra as well, with rigorous variable definitions. Enjoy.
     
  22. Lew Zealand

    Lew Zealand TS Guru Posts: 834   +730

    Scientific hypotheses slowly become theories as they pass numerous tests without being falsified. However the non-scientist conflates the word theory with hypothesis to mean a probably untested idea which could be either right or wrong. That where this law thing comes from, to let the non-scientist know that these have passed the numerous tests and haven't been disproven. It's PR. You may not think of them as laws if you want to play a semantics game, and that's cool, but this is more of a public outreach thing.

    One of the fun things about science is to disprove old ideas which were made with crappier evidence and tools and replace them with more accurate theories. The point is to understand the world around you, so that you can make predictions based on that understanding. If you have crap data and experimental procedures, your predictions are going to suck and if you have good data and controls in your experiments, your predictions are going to be a lot better.

    BTW, I think that sinking tens of billions of $£€ into this big ring is a waste and if they think that the scientific will to spend that money over **70** years is going to last, they're smoking better stuff than I have.
     
    senketsu and JaredTheDragon like this.
  23. I would suggest also that we have had very, very little time to figure this stuff out. Many cultures do not or haven't in the past had any form of what we call science. The ball is just getting rolling....
     
  24. Reachable

    Reachable TS Evangelist Posts: 369   +183

    The forum system indicated that you quoted my post (although I don't see it) so I must assume that you addressed this post to me. Please suffer my response if this is an error.

    I don't at all consider such projects fake science. In fact, I'm all in favor of anything exploratory, even if it involves considerable expense. It's an exciting and necessary part of the human condition.

    From the small amount of research I've done into this particular project it appears that it has a significant number of detractors who maintain that it won't be adequate to answer the necessary questions. I'm in no position to judge who is right and who is wrong, nor are any of the people in the national legislatures who are ultimately responsible for the decision whether to contribute.
     
  25. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 4,193   +2,476

    Most scientists with any amount of integrity will tell anyone that science does not necessarily have all the answers and is open to new discoveries that further or, perhaps, even revolutionize science. The burden of proof is on the scientist or scientists that propose the new theory.

    A theory has to be testable - without supporting tests, theories are really nothing more than conjecture. Surely, advances in science take time. Some of the widely-accepted great scientific advancements have sometimes been outright rejected, yet over time, came to be accepted.

    I looked up Miles Mathis. What I found reminds me of people like Tom Bearden and Joe Newman.

    Newman produced a prototype of an electrically-powered mechanical device that he claimed was able to generate electricity. He claimed that it was an "overunity" device - in other words, it produced more electricity than it took to run it. He tried to patent it in the US, however, US patent rules prohibit granting patents to overunity devices since they are not proven to be possible by modern physics.

    The US DOE agreed to test the device that Newman built, and the DOE was not able to reproduce Newman's results. Interestingly, Newman did not claim that the DOE or the government was conspiring against him; he did, however, claim that the DOE's test procedure was incorrect and this is why the DOE did not get the same results.

    Numerous people out there have built devices similar to Newman's however, no one has reproduced Newman's results. IF the device were capable of what Newman said it was, anyone should be able to build an exact copy of the device and get the same results. This is how invention and progress happen. When no one can get the same results from a device built in the same manner and to the same specs as the original, the logical conclusion is simple: the device does not work as the inventor claims.

    To claim that everyone else is doing something incorrectly is logical fallacy. The burden of proof rests on the inventor or scientist of the competing theory.
     

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...